click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
MSNBCW 20
CNNW 4
MSNBC 3
CNBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 32
Search Results 0 to 31 of about 32 (some duplicates have been removed)
today, that the supreme court is taking the prop 8 case, the perry case, as well as the doma case. and, you know, look, when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court that in this country we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right, and the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in the history of this country, and i'm optimistic that once the court does hear this case and the doma case, they're going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and equality just as they have so many times in our nation's past. >> and equal protection of the laws. elizabeth, thank you for coming on. equal protection of the laws. lib cert a pretty profound notion in this country. >> it is 37. >> pursuit of happiness is our declaration. why not? >> here is the thing, if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. don't we judge, chris, presidents by whether they stand up to the m
it's going to play out the doma case prop 8 case how two different cases how do you think doma case. >> doma case involves whether someone who had lived with domestic partner for 45 years should have to pay estate taxes where if they lived as husband and wife she would not have to pay estate taxes and prop 8 involves whether or not gay marriage is simply legal. i think what we are seeing here they only need four justices to decide whether to take the issue. i think there is a little bit of politics there because if obama appoints more justices, they are not going to have to get the issue before the court. i think expect that the court going to say that gay marriage is legal just as they said you couldn't ban racially mixed racial marriages and things of that sort. you know, husband and wife, man and woman does not appear in the constitution. it's more a policy or religious decision than a legal decision. legally i don't think they can ban it. >> laura: i clerked at the court quite a few years ago now back in 1993. but predicting what the court is going to do is always quite difficul
to take it up. many of us thought this is exactly what's going to happen with the prop 8 case. the doma case is slightly different. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it's going to go back. it's going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. >> so what are the implications -- the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question e could they resolve? >> the doma case is a much more easy case. all it does is to return congress to its original position of following whatever states say the definition of marriage are. so it was crafted because it's a movement. they tend to be pro-state's rights and the liberals are pro-gay so arguing towards the middle, these are justice kennedy's favorite things. that's clearly a fifth vote for this case. we assume. so i think everyone imagined everyone since appellate court struck it down, that it leads to the supreme court to review the case. everyone thought they would take the case. i think they are going to do the right thing and strike it down. the
the doma case. gay marriage advocates who want the defense of marriage act struck down say doma creates a gay-only exception to federal recognition of state licensed marriages. and we believe that the federal government should stop discriminating against same sex couples legally married by their states. but defender of traditional marriage between one man and one woman say, quote: since president bill clinton signed doma into law, 30 states have followed suit by incorporating the definition of marriage into their constitutions. voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution. arguments on both cases are likely to be in march and rules likely in june. shep? >> shepard: we got another announcement from the supreme court today. it's going to take up another case that really could effect what we all pay for prescription drugs. >> right. this is about the battle between more expensive brand name drugs and cheaper generic drugs. some of the brand name companies pay the generic drug makers to keep cheaper drugs off store counters whi
of the arc of history and civil rights, given the fact that they're taking up both doma and prop 8. i wonder where you think roberts fits into all this. >> based on some of the other decisions he has made, i don't think he is quite as conservative as some people think. i think taking up the doma case is really important because we really need to have the defense of marriage act struck down. marriage in the states is great. but at the end of the day, there is an awful lot of benefits that come from the federal tax code, that people who get married need to enjoy if you're going to have a fair and equitable situation in society. so i think they made a big step forward here. and, you know, the court is a hard place to read. unfortunately, it's not like the election. well don't have nate silver to read every morning to tell us how it's going to turn out. but we'll all be watching closely. >> chris, there is a third issue that the justices haven't taken up yet, and that's an arizona law that bars some same-sex spouses from access to state benefits. where do we go on that? what happens to that issu
with the prop 8 case. the doma case is slightly different for reasons we can go into. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it's going to go back. it's going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. then wash out the outliers like intraracial marriage did. >> so what are the implications -- the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question could they resolve? >> the doma case is a much more easy case. it's a much more challenge. all it does is to return congress to its original position of following whatever states' definition of marriage are. in some ways it was crafted, it's a movement. they tend to be pro-state's rights and the liberals are pro gay, so essentially toward the middle, these are justice kennedy's favorite things. that's clearly a fifth vote for this case. we assume. so i think everyone imagined everyone since appellate court struck down the congressional statute that invariably leads the supreme court to review the case. everyone thought they would take the case. i think t
. probably the most serious standing questions are on the doma case and windsor case. the cases being defended by a group of republican members and it is not clear that they have actual standing to bring the case. so if the court says you don't have standing, then the e lower court would prevail and windsor would prevail. >> how would the court's ruling affect marriage equality? >> it couldn't be more important. that case came for african-americans in 1954, i believe. this could be that moment. we're all hoping that it is. this country is an imperfect union by mere fact that we have not recognized the right of people in love to be married. there are 120,000 couples in this country that are directly -- have their interests directly at stake. but it's not just them. the question is will this country embrace this fundamental human right? and i don't believe kennedy wants to be on the wrong side of history on that. >> this is the latest challenge to the constitutionty. is doma doomed? >> i think it is. there are four district courts saying it violated the rights of gay and lesbian couples
to consider choosing and two prop 8 ones. they have one doma and one prop 8. >> what's fascinating, this is a court that has avoided this issue. it's been pathological. everyone in lawrence v. texas, the opinion was distorted in my ways because of a clear effort not to say anything that would have baring on the same-sex marriage issue. suddenly, they take two issues with the broadest possible front. the question is, what are they going to do and whether they are going to reach an impasse. if there's an impasse, sometimes they go for narrow decisions. there are outs in these cases. both cases have standing issues. questions of whether these are the party that is have a right to bring this type of challenge. the standing issues are particularly prominent in the doma case. the proposition 8 case probably offers the broadest scope for a major ruling. what people, many people hope, is that that would be the case where the court says this violates equal protection. you can't deny these people the same rights of marriage. if it were to do that, then it would effectively set aside 31 state
or doma. the cases aren't expected to be decided until next june, the fact that they're weighing in on the debate will have a national effect. back at the table. kenji yoshino. donna edwards, bob herbert and joining us is ray kerry. the executive director of the guy and lesbian task force. i'm going to you kenji, you're always here to set my constitutional framework for me. it's going to be two cases, right? what's at issue in the two separate cases. >> i should do them in the order you presented them. the prop 8 case is about a state ban on same-sex marriage. so there are equal protection and due process challenges. what that means is, this violates the fundamental right of fairness of streeting gay and straight couples the same. you're denying us the fundamental right to marriage. there's a quality component and a rights component to it. if the supreme court goes big on that case, it could guarantee same-sex marriage as a law of the land. flipping the 41 states that currently don't have it and requiring them to have it. i don't think that's going to happen. on the other hand, i
the federal defense of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were c
. the other case called windsor versus doma originated in new york and challenges the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act. we're going to talk about this a little bit more this morning, and we'll have our legal contributor paul callan discuss it with us right after this break. i always wait until the last minute. can i still ship a gift in time for christmas? yeah, sure you can. great. where's your gift? uh... whew. [ male announcer ] break from the holiday stress. ship fedex express by december 22nd for christmas delivery. up high! ok. don't you have any usefull apps on that thing? who do you think i am, quicken loans? ♪ at quicken loans, our amazingly useful mortgage calculator app allows you to quickly calculate your mortgage payment based on today's incredibly low interest rates... right from your iphone or android smartphone. one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. ♪ home of the legendary grand prix circuit. the perfect place to bring the all-new cadillac ats to test the 2.0-liter turbo engine. [ engine revs ] ♪ [ derek ] 272 horsepower. the lightest i
for the time being? >> reporter: you know, that's the interesting question here. we don't know. the doma case doesn't invite the court to answer that question. it simple says if in those states that decide to grant same-sex marriage, which is up to the states, can the federal government still refuse to recognize those marriages? even if the supreme court strikes down the doma law, it won't say anything about whether a state has to allow same-sex marriage. on the prop 8 case it is possible to rule on that case very narrowly or broadly. let me explain. when the court of appeals said that prop 8 was unconstitutional, it said you can't do what california did. you can't give the right, which the california supreme court did, and then take it away, which prop 8 did. california's the only state that did that. if the supreme court barely upholds the court of appeals ruling, that would be good for california only. if the supreme court dives fully into in and gets into the basic constitutional question about whether states can block same-sex marriage, then, yes, they would get to it. they won't -- the
when they passed doma into law in 1996. i need to get your immediate reaction to the supreme court news this afternoon. >> well, i think it's very good for the advocates of marriage equality that the court took both of these issues up. the first issue is this question of the defense of marriage act. it was passed really in the middle of the night in 1996 and signed very reluctant lie by president clinton and e sin essentially says one state does not have to recognize the marriage equality rights another state may give. if you are married legally in the state of massachusetts and you happen to reside -- this is as a gay couple -- and you happen to reside in the state of california, the state of california does not need to recognize your massachusetts marriage, and as a result there are over 1,000 benefits that can be denied to a legally married gay couple if they happen to be living in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. my guess is the supreme court will declare that unconstitutional because there is a long tradition under the privileges and immunities clause of the constitutio
. it's 2012 for pete's sake. we should all be equal by now. cheryl harris says "i think doma women get shut down quickly on solid legal grounds. prop 8 harder but kennedy will clear it up." >>> next the tug-of-war over the fiscal cliff. how much are democrats willing to give our entitlement cuts? we'll ask congressman elijah cummings that question. >>> the fight on capitol hill convinces a big powerball winner to claim his fortune now. you're watching "weekends with alex witt." [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso. in what world do potatoes, bacon and cheese add up to 100 calories? your world. ♪ [ whispers ] real bacon... creamy cheese... 100 calories... [ chef ] ma'am [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. i tell them dentures are very different to real teeth. they're about 10 times softer and may have surface pores where bacteria can grow and multiply. polident is specifically designed to clean dentures daily. its unique micro-clean formula kills 99.9% of odor causing bacteria and helps dissolve stains, cleaning in a better way than brushing with toothpaste. that's why
. the end of the doma act. how do you see this? >> one of the first things that usually comes to my mind when i think about prop 8 was that you had the people of california, they looked at having this particular law upheld as simply because they're the ones who wanted it to happen. and the courts there decided no forget about it. it's simply not going to happen. not only that but if you remember, the donors who were supporting this law, they had a lot of people come after them during that whole scenario. also remember, a lot of businesses who whether it be say wedding photographers, wedding deejays, bank gbank get hauls wo may not be catering to same-sex marriages, they have been attacked very often by lawsuits because they may not necessarily be catering to same-sex marriages. saw this over in new mexico with elaine photography when a photographer said i don't care to photograph same-sex marriage ended up being sued. this lawsuit is still going on right now. >> jimmy williams, welcome back. just explain to me. i'm sure there's a logic to it. i always look at these things as social issue
as well, as you know, that will be overcome. >> the other case involves doma, defense of marriage act. what's at the heart of that question? >> not the fundamental right of same-sex marriage but whether the federal government can define marriage in a certain way, as between one man and one woman. historically that's been the job of the states to decide what marriage is, to define it. that really is the federal government stepping somewhere where it hasn't before. what they have done with that statute is say people can't have thousands of federal benefits. the case before the supreme court involves a woman who had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes she wouldn't have had to pay just because the person she was married to was the same gender as herself. it's fairness but limbed to that one state. >> patricia, always good to see you. thanks for weighing in. >> thank you. >> the deadline for the fiscal cliff is just over three weeks away. lawmakers are still mired in part in gridlock, each side saying the other is to blame. what do their constituents think? cnbc says 21% would blame the presid
early next year. in fact, ten cases related to the federal defense of marriage act, or doma and proposition 8 are pending against supreme court justices right now. at least one of them is going to make it to their docket. we could find out which one today about early next week or so. i'm joined by our legal analyst jeffrey tubin. remind us what are the court's oping whz it comes to marriage equality, and the differences here between doma and prop 8. >> well, defense of marriage act -- defense of marriage act was signed by president clinton in 1996, and it's a law that says the federal government, all as pecks of the federal government, including the internal revenue service will not recognize same-sex marriages even many states where same-sex marriage is legal and two appeals courts have held that that is unconstitutional, that it is unlawful discrimination. the obama administration agrees that this law is unconstitutional. it's now being defended by a lawyer hired by the house of representatives, and the case about is the defense of marriage act constitutional, that is one.
's start with doma. if that is struck down by the high court, thewill that be thed of conservatives' attempts of outlawing gay marriage? >> it is the mother of all federal laws to try to outlaw. it will be over it it's overturned. if social conservatives try to get smart about this stuff, looking for opportunities to play defense instead of offense, doma, which is a terrible law in my estimation, was an attempt to completely play offense. you can't do this anywhere in any state. we're going to pre-empt you before you try. i think social cons are in a much better position when they say, look, let's make it so the government can't compel us to do things privately we don't want to do. i think you'll see much more emphasis placed on that. the question will be more than what will the supreme court try to do because they don't want to be out in front of public opinion too much. it's going to be fascinating. >> and they've rarely been accused of doing that either. david, let's move on to prop 8 in california. if that's struck down, does that mean same-sex marriage is for all intensive purp
and california's proposition 8. doma denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples while prop 8 makes same-sex marriage illegal in california. same-sex marriages are legal in nine other states and the district of columbia. a decision on these cases is expected sometime in june. >>> korean pop star psy is making headlines for a whole other reason than you might think this morning. his music video may be the most watched video in youtube history, but now an old video from 2004 has surfaced of psy calling for the death of american soldiers in iraq. that performance resurfaced in october. in his apology, psy said his performance had been emotionally charged, and "while i'm grateful for the freedom to express oneself, there are limits. i am deeply sorry for any pain i have caused by those words." he is scheduled to perform at a charity event in washington. president barack obama is also planning on attending that event. >>> speaking of president obama, he's issuing a stern warning to syria. don't even think about using chemical weapons against civilians. i'll talk about the implicati
justices will hear cases that challenge the federal defense of merge act or doma as it's known or california's proposition 8 which defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. >>> authorities have ordered folks in parts of louisiana to get out of town as they work to secure more than 6 million pounds of gun powder. gun powder. improperly stored m-6 powder was found at camp minden on property leased by expo system. workers are busy moving the powder into authorized facilities on the site. they have safely stored more than 1 million pounds. that is enough to fill 27 18-wheelers. >> wow. nine bodies have been recovered from three crushed, burned out cars in a highway tunnel 50 miles west of tokyo. officials still don't know what caused a 200 foot section of eight inch thick concrete to cave in over the weekend. take a look at these incredible pictures. and they're not saying whether there might be more victims in the rubble. >>> malala yousafzai, that pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the taliban is saying thank you to all of her new friends all over the world.
Search Results 0 to 31 of about 32 (some duplicates have been removed)